Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Salary Matrix topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates union proposal to rewrite teacher salary matrix, asks staff for side-by-side financial comparison
Summary
Board members spent the bulk of the meeting reviewing a union-drafted salary matrix that would change how raises are distributed by education and years of service; staff agreed to prepare a side-by-side comparison of current and proposed salaries for the next meeting.
The board spent the bulk of the session on a union proposal to change the district's teacher-salary matrix, with presenters and board members clashing over whether the changes would reward education or longevity.
A presenter (speaker 5) summarized the union's proposal: it would simplify lanes and steps and, in several places, increase the percentage jump when a teacher moves to a higher education lane. The presenter warned that, under the union proposal, "they just get a 24% jump over here for the to go to their masters." Montgomery (role/title not specified in the transcript) described the district's estimate that moving from column B straight to the master's lane under the union example would average around $10,000, while the district's alternative averaged about $6,000: "Ours would still not cover the cost of a master's degree."
Board members repeatedly framed the choice as a trade-off between encouraging teachers to obtain higher credentials and keeping a clear return on longevity. One committee member (speaker 6) said the district's current matrix pays steps for time served and that the union approach “is top loading your education” so employees would get larger, earlier increases for earning degrees but could reduce longevity incentives. Another director noted that many current teachers have already "maxed out" on the existing matrix (about 16 years was cited as the point many employees stop receiving step increases), and shifting the matrix could leave experienced master's-level teachers worse off unless offsets are found.
Participants discussed specific percentages in the current matrix (examples cited included 3.7%, 4.05%, 4.35%, 4.53% and up to 5% for higher education lanes) and compared them to the union's proposed numbers (6.25% was mentioned as a jump in one lane). Several board members proposed a compromise of a more uniform step progression — for example, a 3.3% jump "all the way across" — to reduce large inequities while limiting district exposure. Staff and a committee member agreed it is possible to produce examples with actual dollar figures to show who would gain and who would lose.
The committee asked staff to prepare a side-by-side spreadsheet showing current salaries alongside what they would be under the union proposal and under a uniform-jump alternative, and to return the analysis at the next meeting (December/January). The presenter and staff said they would run scenarios and include the real dollar impacts so the board can see any employees who would materially lose income under a unification.
The discussion closed without a decision on which matrix to adopt; board members framed the session as a fact-finding and comparison step ahead of any formal vote or negotiation.
